Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abstinece-only sex education
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 151 of 306 (313250)
05-18-2006 4:27 PM


That this is an issue is strange to me. Kids are taught the basic functions of parts of their body like the eyes or the stomach and no one bats an eyelash. Kids are taught how other kinds of diseases are spread and no one breaks out into a sweat.
What's wrong with teaching kids what their bodies are doing, what they will do, what they could do in the case of their genitals?

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 5:45 PM docpotato has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 152 of 306 (313257)
05-18-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by macaroniandcheese
05-18-2006 4:20 PM


don't tell me not to buy a car because i will get into a wreck. tell me what is involved in car buying and car ownership. same deal with sex
Consider that argument stolen.
I'll try to remember to credit you for it, Brenna.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-18-2006 4:20 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 153 of 306 (313267)
05-18-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by macaroniandcheese
05-18-2006 8:35 AM


Re: More evidence of the Failure of Abstinence programs.
The wait and see in that particular post was a suggestion that the problem is the philosophy of sexual freedom which won't wait and see because in their view the whole approach is wrong. Sorry I did answer your question wrongly before. I wasn't so much saying "give it a chance" as saying "consider what it's really trying to accomplish." But I've discovered on this thread that's a lost cause.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-18-2006 8:35 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 154 of 306 (313268)
05-18-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by macaroniandcheese
05-18-2006 4:20 PM


The life problems you are describing are way beyond the scope of any sex education program. You needed a personal counselor about a lot more than sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-18-2006 4:20 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-18-2006 10:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 160 by Discreet Label, posted 05-19-2006 1:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 181 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-19-2006 10:40 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 155 of 306 (313278)
05-18-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by docpotato
05-18-2006 4:27 PM


That this is an issue is strange to me. Kids are taught the basic functions of parts of their body like the eyes or the stomach and no one bats an eyelash. Kids are taught how other kinds of diseases are spread and no one breaks out into a sweat.
What's wrong with teaching kids what their bodies are doing, what they will do, what they could do in the case of their genitals?
That's a very succinct accounting of the situation from the science-minded instrumentalist point of view. From that point of view it appears there is no other point of view. Sex is completely divorced from its cultural and moral historical framework and treated as nothing but a biological phenomenon and physical health issue.
You are speaking for one of the "cultures" of the "two cultures" that are in perpetual combat these days, that I've been trying to illuminate. All the descriptions of the problem and solutions to it from your side of the cultural divide have this pragmatic biological focus that to someone on the other side of the divide appears dehumanizing and culturally suicidal.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by docpotato, posted 05-18-2006 4:27 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by docpotato, posted 05-18-2006 6:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 159 by ReverendDG, posted 05-18-2006 11:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 162 by RickJB, posted 05-19-2006 3:25 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 164 by Silent H, posted 05-19-2006 4:05 AM Faith has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 156 of 306 (313281)
05-18-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
05-18-2006 5:45 PM


Sex is completely divorced from its cultural and moral historical framework and treated as nothing but a biological phenomenon and physical health issue.
Well, clearly, there is more to it than just the pure biology. But this is true of anything I can think of.
The eye and the stomach have larger cultural and moral issues attached to them (some images are forbidden to look at, certain foods should not be eaten, etc.). Imagine a school where children are not taught how the stomach processes and breaks down food for fear that children might eat pork. Or eat during the Holy Fasting Time. Or, I suppose, to keep the analogy more intact, for fear that they might eat something poisonous. This is ludicrious.
All the descriptions of the problem and solutions to it from your side of the cultural divide have this pragmatic biological focus that to someone on the other side of the divide appears dehumanizing and culturally suicidal.
I don't understand what's dehumanizing.
Some aspects of the sexual act can be easily broken down into biological components. Other aspects can not. Same goes for eyesight, stomachs, cancer, etc. The aspects that cannot be broken down this way fall into subjective areas that are harder to teach but no less important. That's why I think kids should also be taught poetry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 5:45 PM Faith has not replied

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5749 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 157 of 306 (313291)
05-18-2006 6:34 PM


When I was taught what a condom was, and how to use one, I didn't immediately get the urge to shove it on and stick it in some girl I just met. When I had sex ed 2 years ago in 10th grade health, learning about STDs and safe sex didn't make me want to go and start engaging in casual sex. Having a better knowledge of how it works helped me make the decision myself to remain abstinent.

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 158 of 306 (313374)
05-18-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
05-18-2006 5:28 PM


thanks asshole. call me crazy.
no. i need proper instruction in matters that are important to my personal health. i need truth instead of lies, moralizing, and bullshit. and so do the children in our nation. and you are deaf to all of it and because you can't pry your self-righteous bible out of your ass, you are killing our children.
and you still aren't contributing to the debate. you have discussed nothing regarding sex education programs. not even a single anecdote. not a single stray fact about anything except one puny (and incorrect) factoid about syphallis and gonnorhea being the only stds before the 1960s. stop talking about how godless and worthless we are and start discussing reality with us. you've spent your entire time on this thread preaching about how you can't discuss anything with us because we don't speak the same language. so start translating or piss off. this is a board for discussion and debate and you are merely raving. start your own thread about how we don't speak the same language and keep that bullshit excuse off the rest of the board.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 5:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 05-19-2006 11:27 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 159 of 306 (313388)
05-18-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
05-18-2006 5:45 PM


That's a very succinct accounting of the situation from the science-minded instrumentalist point of view. From that point of view it appears there is no other point of view. Sex is completely divorced from its cultural and moral historical framework and treated as nothing but a biological phenomenon and physical health issue.
yes because stds are purely cultural and moral and have nothing to do with the health risks involved.
You are speaking for one of the "cultures" of the "two cultures" that are in perpetual combat these days, that I've been trying to illuminate. All the descriptions of the problem and solutions to it from your side of the cultural divide have this pragmatic biological focus that to someone on the other side of the divide appears dehumanizing and culturally suicidal.
there arn't two cultures theres just one with many points of view, trying to polerize the issue is just wrong faith
abstinece-only sex eduducation will limit or flat out stunt children when it comes to sex and how to deal with it. what if we teach only abstinence and the person ends in a situation that abstinence doesn't cover? they will be lost and get into problems they have no way to deal with
but if we give them the knowelege to handle sex in an intellegent fashion with all the facts, both good and bad, they should be able to decide not to have it with out safty precautions
i tihnk you are adding baggage to something that shouldn't have it, you are making the leap it seems of thinking that if people know how sex works, that they will do it, which you have no evidence of this
i mean come on humans have been having sex for thousands of years but they didn't have a clue how it works - look at religions from any age before modern medencin
abstinece-only sex-ed shows that people do not think children are smart enough to think for themselves about thier bodies and should be afraid of them

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 5:45 PM Faith has not replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 160 of 306 (313420)
05-19-2006 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
05-18-2006 5:28 PM


Life problems are not necessairly beyond sex educational programs.
For example at my college they provide a class called human sexuality. Now while it didn't give me any diffinitive answers about sex or what i'm supposed to be feeling or how i'm supposed to exactly conduct a healthy relationship. It did provide me a chance to roleplay very serious relationship questions and practice the communication involved within relationships.
Sex Education at my college has very strict grounds to cover and by far i learned more in that particular class then i did with any abstinence material i picked up. And while abstienence is a purely valid form of education, the way it is currently taught as indicated by the Waxman report (http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/...201102153-50247.pdf). (yes it is a political report done independantly by a congressman that went and analyzed the materials that are used by abstience programs [which by the way anyone can do] program literature was analyzed and compared to the government STANDARD CDC materials) Basically demonstrates that several, not all, were providing false, inadequate, or misleading information about gender roles, contraceptives etc. if they even talked about them.
And life problems are also not beyond the scope of a sex ed class because frankly if your literally born androgynous, born with both sets of genitalia, born with the wrong set of genitalia, don't understand why you were assigned a speciifc sex (sex as in you got girl genitalia or boy genitalia) when it don't fit [for example some girls are born with larger clitorisis and may be mistaken for boys], don't like the gender (masculine, feminine or androgynous) role you have been placed in. It is extremely nice to know that there are other people whom have experienced the same difficulty because then there is some sort of connection you can make to life.
Your comment toward brenna was extremely trite, uncalled for and just down right demonstrating a lack of respect for another person. Just because someone has a different perspective on life gives zero right for you to belittle them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 5:28 PM Faith has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 161 of 306 (313421)
05-19-2006 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dr Jack
05-18-2006 8:26 AM


Re: lemme get this straight
Teaching about love: to take an example from Denmark, children are taught at age 6 that there is this concept of love, that love has different forms (i.e "I love my mummy" vs. romantic love) and introduced to the concept that some people love people of their own sex.
I was in a relationship with a girl from Denmark and lived there for a bit. One of the people was specifically a teacher of small children. I do not know what you are talking about. You are suggesting that this is taught in schools as part of sex education? If not, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
The suggestion was that IDEAL sex education programs would include a discussion of love. My argument was that that is a highly ethnocentric concept, including usage of language which may not be relevant to all cultures. That is a valid point when we are discussing sex education programs for other cultures. There is no IDEAL sex education program that involves singular moral or cultural concepts.
Sex does not equal or necessitate love and vice versa. And I will note that for some cultures (including for many parents in the west) "loving" people of the same sex is thought to be in the same category as "loving" mom and not "romantic". Are you suggesting it should not be taught that way because there is a minority community that thinks different? What about the minority community that believes one can love mom romantically as well?
I can see how one can teach sex education without mentioning love. I cannot see how one can discuss love in the context of sex without running headlong into mandating a single cultural vision.
Unless you're subscribing to linguistic determinism that is.
If a term is a cultural artifact then it is not necessary for educational programs. Let me put this in a way you might understand better. Some cultures do not have a concept of Jesus or even of Gods, to say that an ideal sex education program would involve discussions of either would be unnecessary, right?
I notice that while being dismissive of my post you have not attempted to explain why love would be part of, much less necessary for an IDEAL sex education program. That some might use it on a local level is one thing. Suggestion it is part and parcel of sex education is another.
Teaching about respect: that's pretty simple really, you shouldn't do things you don't want to do or try to get other people to do things they don't want to do.
Yeah that's pretty simple. Too bad the concept of respect is not that as easy as you made out. As I suggested cultures have different ideas of what counts as respect for onesself and others and so your saying it will be YOUR version which gets taught sort of begs the question I introduced.
Does selfrespect include doing things one wants if others do not want you to do them (even if it does not involve anyone else but you or another willing partner)? Does respect for others include NOT trying to help them overcome social stigmas which currently make them NOT want to do certain activities but it is obvious they have such inclinations?
I mean according to YOUR definition of respect then prostitution and porn and even child sex (as long as the kids are willing) is no problem. Many would disagree. Also, according to YOUR definition, it would seem that one should not be helping people overcome hangups against homosexuality. Many would agree with that sentiment, but my guess is that you would not.
And in ANY CASE, personal integrity and individualism is something that (if its going to be taught) would be taught in an overall educational sense. Why it would have to be part of a sex education program is unknown. How would it HELP prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancies? If a person is given the knowledge of how that works, then it doesn't matter what emotional situations they have sex in... right?
Unless you are arguing that someone will believe, unless taught about sex within the confines or romance and respect, that the mechanics will change based on the emotional/political circumstance of the sex act?
Maybe I can start very simply. Masturbation. Define a singular vision of that sexual activity which involves love and respect. It was once raised in the US as being mentioned to children in sex education as a form of safe sex which respected one's needs and without violated or disrespecting others. That resulted in the Surgeon General being dismissed from her job because many people thought masturbation is disrespectful to onesself and others. Ironically dismissed by a president who would go on to almost be dismissed for getting a blowjob, when if he had just stuck with masturbation...
Edited by holmes, : No reason given.

holmes {in extreme lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dr Jack, posted 05-18-2006 8:26 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dr Jack, posted 05-19-2006 4:51 AM Silent H has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 162 of 306 (313423)
05-19-2006 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
05-18-2006 5:45 PM


faith writes:
That's a very succinct accounting of the situation from the science-minded instrumentalist point of view. From that point of view it appears there is no other point of view. Sex is completely divorced from its cultural and moral historical framework and treated as nothing but a biological phenomenon and physical health issue.
That's absolutely not true. All sex ed clases will have education about cultural and personal conduct along with the purely biological processes.
So what exactly do you object to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 5:45 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Silent H, posted 05-19-2006 3:31 AM RickJB has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 163 of 306 (313425)
05-19-2006 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by RickJB
05-19-2006 3:25 AM


All sex ed clases will have education about cultural and personal conduct along with the purely biological processes.
That's not true. And I have been arguing should not be the case. Morals should be left to the side as they are IRRELEVANT to discussion of biological facts. Morals are for your family and friends to discuss with you.
If they are to include cultural and personal conduct, can you tell me WHICH cultural and personal philosophy would be taught? And then what that would have to do with actually maintaining physical sexual health?

holmes {in extreme lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by RickJB, posted 05-19-2006 3:25 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RickJB, posted 05-19-2006 4:05 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 164 of 306 (313427)
05-19-2006 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
05-18-2006 5:45 PM


That's a very succinct accounting of the situation from the science-minded instrumentalist point of view. From that point of view it appears there is no other point of view. Sex is completely divorced from its cultural and moral historical framework and treated as nothing but a biological phenomenon and physical health issue.
Doc's post was excellent and so was his followup. I don't feel you are giving him a fair shake. Let me try to approach this in a similar manner, but some added dimensions.
First let me say right at the outset that I AM very pro sexual freedom. I am the antithesis of everything you believe about sex and am the target of everything you are railing against our nation heading toward. I want to get that out of the way right now.
Okay, it seems to me that regardless of one's moral agenda we should be able to agree people will have sex and issues with regard to sexual health will exist (within wedlock or not). This is to say whether one waits until marriage at 30 to have sex, or decides to have sex at 10 with anyone and all passing by on the street, the NATURE of the problems one can face are exactly the same on a mechanistic level.
Education has the purpose of training young people to deal with potential issues they will face at any point in their life. Why sex should be treated differently is not obvious, even from a strict antisexoutsideofmarriage viewpoint. Education will teach the simple basic mechanics of how the body works and the nature of the physical components and how one may deal with the physical issues can arise.
I can tell you straight up that that does NOT further MY moral agenda one iota. Namely it cannot because it does NOT teach cultural/historical issues. That latter portion is left to parents and the community. And thus there are no moral conflicts.
If your kid is taught how pregnancy occurs and how it can be facilitated/avoided, that is merely factual information which can aid him or her at the time sex becomes an issue in their life. If a kid is ONLY taught the moral message of "don't have sex", then when sex does become an issue, he or she is totally unarmed to deal with any threats to their health.
Unless you are believing that your children will not go on to get married and be fruitful and multiply, they will face the same physical risks everyone else does. We can agree on that, right?
Sex education then is as much a training for sexual health within a faithful marriage as anything else. That some may decide to use that training to help them survive in sexual situations outside marriage is besides the point. And I might add helping this other group does not hurt as it would at least reduce the number of health problems any specific sex-fiend will suffer which is better for the community, even if on the average they are going to suffer more (if I accept your false argument regarding disease for the sake of discussion).
It seems like a win-win situation. Where am I wrong in this?

holmes {in extreme lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 5:45 PM Faith has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 165 of 306 (313428)
05-19-2006 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Silent H
05-19-2006 3:31 AM


holmes writes:
That's not true.
Yes it is. I was taught as such fifteen years ago when I was in school. I please note that I said "personal and cultural issues" and NOT "morals", which bring religious implications.
Of course it was a western paradigm.
Relationships, marriage, divorce, sexuality, peer pressure. The thrust of the content was to engender self-respect and the respect of others with regard to the above.
Certainly it wasn't the be-all-and-end-all, but the intent was there!
Edited by RickJB, : Tags.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Silent H, posted 05-19-2006 3:31 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Silent H, posted 05-19-2006 4:25 AM RickJB has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024